IT IS ESTIMATED THAT 15 PERCENT OF ALL COMPUTER CRIME IS REPORTED, AND THAT THESE REPORTS COME FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES INCLUDING SYSTEMS ANALYSTS, AUDITORS, AND PROGRAMMERS. EVIDENCE COLLECTION IS COMPLICATED BY THE HUGE VOLUME OF DATA INVOLVED, THE INABILITY OF INVESTIGATORS TO REACH DATA WITHOUT SHUTTING DOWN BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE VICTIM COMPANY, AND LEGAL CONFLICTS ARISING FROM RIGHT TO PRIVACY, SEARCH WARRANT, AND CONSENT TO SEARCH ISSUES. INFORMATION THAT CAN BE USED AS EVIDENCE CANNOT BE MARKED IN CONVENTIONAL MANNERS AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO PRESERVE THE ORIGINAL CONDITION OF COMPUTERIZED EVIDENCE. THE LACK OF COMPUTER KNOWLEDGE AMONG JUDGES AND JURY MEMBERS MAKES EVIDENCE PRESERVATION DIFFICULT. IF IT CANNOT BE PROVEN THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS ACQUIRED WITHIN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AND WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED, THE EVIDENCE CAN BE DISQUALIFIED. PROSECUTORS MUST ALSO BE ABLE TO PROVE THE RELIABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE. INVESTIGATORS ARE ADVISED TO ACQUAINT THEMSELVES WITH THE MECHANISMS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING, INTERNAL WORKINGS OF THE MACHINE, AND METHODS BY WHICH THE COMPUTER IS CONNECTED TO REMOTE INPUT OR OUTPUT DEVICES. PROSECUTORS AND INVESTIGATORS SHOULD UNDERSTAND BUSINESS AND LEGAL PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN INVESTIGATING COMPUTER CRIME AND SHOULD EMPLOY THE SERVICES OF A COMPUTER EXPERT. A WRITTEN INVESTIGATION PLAN SHOULD BE FORMULATED BEFORE THE ACTUAL INVESTIGATION AND THE VICTIM-COMPANY DIRECTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD BE CONSULTED PRIOR TO INVESTIGATION. A LIST OF GROUPS INTERESTED IN COMPUTER CRIME IS APPENDED AS WELL AS A CHECKLIST OF CHARACTERISTICS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING FUNCTIONS, SPECIMEN CHECKLISTS FOR AUDITORS, AND A SEARCH WARRANT SAMPLE. A BIBLIOGRAPHY IS INCLUDED.